Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Bhille seo. Táimid ag fanacht air le tamall fada. Bhí sé fógraithe i 2014 go raibh sé ag teacht isteach. Caithfidh mé a rá go raibh plé agus scansáil iontach mhaith déanta ar an Bhille seo agus muid ag déileáil leis ag an choiste airgeadais. Níl mórán eolais ag an phobal mór amuigh ansin ar an Choimisinéir Achomhairc ach is oifig iontach tábhachtach í nuair atá daoine ag brath uirthi. Chuala muid ag an choiste agus chuala muid arís ón Teachta McGrath faoin mhoill a bhíonn ar an chóras sin scaití, go háirithe sa sampla a tugadh ag an choiste.

Chuala muid go mbíonn ar dhaoine fanacht ar feadh na mblianta fada le cinneadh a dhéanamh, go bhfuil moill ar an chóras, nach bhfuil sé ag obair mar is ceart, nach bhfuil sé ag obair go héifeachtúil agus nuair atá daoine ag lorg achomhairc go bhfuil siad ag baint a gcuid cásanna.

Tá cúpla cúis leis sin. B'fhéidir gur rinneadh an cinneadh contráilte sa chéad dul síos nó b'fhéidir go bhfuil eolas á thabhairt anois ag leibhéal an achomhairc nár tugadh roimhe sin. Tá an páirtí s'againne ag iarraidh go mbeadh trédhearcacht agus cothromacht ann sa chóras achomhairc do shaoránaí agus iad ag déileáil lena gcuid ghnóthaí cánach. Bhí na cainteanna miona a bhí againn ag an choiste airgeadais iontach tábhachtach. Bhí na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim againn, an Roinn Airgeadais, na páirtí leasmhara eile agus na Coimisinéirí Achomhairc iad féin. Ba chleachtadh iontach úsáideach a bhí ann agus bhí muid ábalta go leor a phlé. Tá cuid de na moltaí a tháinig as an choiste le feiceáil sa Bhille atá os comhair an Tí inniu.

Ní bhaineann an pointe seo leis an chóras seo amháin, baineann sé leis na córais eile agus na hoifigí eile atá ann freisin. Caithfear athbhreathnú rialta a dhéanamh orthu go léir. Cé go bhfuil sé seo á dhéanamh againn anois, ba chóir go mbeadh sé déanta againn cúpla bliain ó shin mar go bhfuil constaicí ansin agus gnó le hathbhreithniú agus athordú le déanamh ar an chóras sin. É sin ráite, cuirim fáilte roimh an Bhille.

On behalf of Sinn Féin, I welcome this legislation. The Appeal Commissioner is not a name on the lips of every citizen but it is an important office, particularly when it falls on one to appeal a decision of the Revenue Commissioners. My party’s approach to this Bill is about seeking transparency and fairness in the appeals system and that it is open to citizens when dealing with their tax affairs. One of the most useful developments of political reform has been the pre-legislative scrutiny process. In this case, it was very beneficial to my understanding of the tax appeals system, as well as informing our views on the legislation, shaping it and allowing for some of the proposals that came out of the pre-legislative process to be taken on board. There was a long engagement between members of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and the Department of Finance officials, the Revenue Commissioners and other stakeholders, which was useful in trashing out ideas. As a starting point, it is important that we regularly review the systems and offices we have in place. We all recognise that this review of the tax appeals office is long overdue. It is good we have legislation to make the appeals system more robust, fair and transparent but it could have been done a long time ago.

The two most contentious aspects of the Bill are the removal of private hearings of appeals and the removal of the right to appeal to the Circuit Court. The Minister’s Bill is a compromise on the first issue. As a rule now, hearings will be in public but can, on request of the appellant, be held in private. Many who work in the tax field were alarmed at the move towards a more public system. However, in a modern world, transparency should be a principle that is adhered to. I tend towards the view that all such hearings should be held in public but I accept this is a genuine compromise that has been arrived at after serious and proper consultation and debate on the issue. There are always reasons to delay the release of or redact information from the public. In most cases, the arguments are weak and are more about protecting certain people than protecting the public themselves. While there is a compromise that the appellant can request the appeal to be held in private, the reality is they will be held in private. I cannot see many people appearing before the Appeal Commissioner with the option of having the hearing held in private but deciding they want a full public hearing, particularly if it is a matter they want to hide. I am not convinced about this move and believe the original Bill had enough caveats in it to allow it to remain as is. At the committee hearings, I gave examples of political appointments made and tax rulings.

I cannot accept the refusal of the Minister to consider maintaining the right to appeal to the Circuit Court. This is a major flaw in this legislation. It is a pity because we seem to be moving in the right direction. Removing the right to appeal to the Circuit Court, however, is simply wrong. There is a policy pattern with the Government to remove the right of access to the Circuit Court for citizens. We saw this with recent customs legislation and changes to the Financial Services Ombudsman process. The idea people abuse the appeals system does not stand up to scrutiny.

The removal of the appeal to the Circuit Court is unnecessary. Its removal will prohibit many people from appealing due to the costs involved and the different legal requirement associated with a High Court challenge. I believe this to be the intention behind the proposal and it is important to state that fact. This proposal was one of probably the two most contentious issues dealt with by the committee. The Department's explanation does not stand up to the points I have made about the additional cost and the different legal requirement associated with a High Court challenge. The response to the committee's suggestion to maintain the Circuit Court option does not mention the very obvious implications I have mentioned. The argument for not adopting the committee's suggestion is that retention of the Circuit Court stage would undermine the Tax Appeals Commission stage and that the Circuit Court stage allows for a complete rehearing of the case rather than being limited to appeals of issues addressed at the Tax Appeals Commission stage. There is no reason not to have a full rehearing. The Department also states that the reformed appeals process should render the appeal to the Circuit Court judge unnecessary, would make for a speedier resolution of appeals and that the retention of the Circuit Court stage would be anomalous in the context of the proposed reforms which, it says, will provide more flexibility, transparency and for the publication of all determinations. The legal requirement associated with a High Court challenge instead of a Circuit Court one is not addressed, nor is the fact that the costs involved will deter many people. This will have to be revisited on Committee Stage. I hope we can reach an agreement on it, but it is a fundamental point and one on which my party has a strong view.

There is much to welcome in this legislation. We will have a more transparent system with decisions recorded systematically for the first time. This is a positive move. That we are stating this fact re-emphasises my point that we should have done this a long time ago, but there is no point in looking backwards. It is clear a record of decisions which would provide guidance is sensible. The claim that this new process will help unlock significant funds for the Exchequer is doubtful. In any case, such an approach is not the way to reform the appeals process. The notion presented by the Department of Finance was credibly challenged by the Appeal Commissioners during the pre-legislative process and is probably something to which we will return.

Some of the moves in this legislation are cosmetic while others are more significant and enhance the independence of the commission. That is an important step forward. The use of the Public Appointments Service rather than the Minister in the appointment process is an important move forward which I welcome. This Bill is also a timely reminder of the important work Revenue does. In the comprehensive review of expenditure, Revenue identified how, with the proper resources, it could substantially increase the tax take through a small investment in staff and training. This is something my party has called for and I hope it will be put in place. My party will support this Bill on Second Stage but we will be examining whether we will table amendments to deal with some of the issues I have raised. I wish, however, to put down a marker with regard to the appeal process to the Circuit Court and hope we can meet somewhere on the issue.

I stated at the pre-legislative stage that Revenue is an agency of the State which people fear but also respect. Many so-called pillars of society, whether financial institutions, wise economists, the Church, or politics itself, took a wild bashing over the past decade or so, but Revenue has been able to hold its head up high and has been very efficient in so doing. It is right that we are streamlining and enhancing the process and removing the blocks that exist with regard to the appeals office, but we need to ensure additional resources are provided to Revenue. I am conscious in that regard of the upcoming budget. It has proven itself, however, in terms of the resources it has obtained in the past and there is much Revenue could be doing to combat the black market.

See this speech in context